Talk:Receivership/Archives/2016
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Receivership. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Receivership. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080913212126/http://www.mlive.com:80/kzgazette/news/index.ssf/2008/09/courtappointed_receiver_now_co.html to http://www.mlive.com/kzgazette/news/index.ssf/2008/09/courtappointed_receiver_now_co.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:12, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Merge requests
There are a couple of different merge requests on different articles, and I think there is a risk of things getting a little blurry. So apologies if I set my views out in some length:
- Receivership and administrative receivership are very similar, and should largely be covered by the same article (as they are at present). Admin receivership is just a subset of the wider form of receivership.
- However, administration orders are something quite different. I appreciate that under UK insolvency law, admin orders have largely taken the place of administrative receivership (but not wider forms of receivership) but in most other common law countries they remain pretty firmly separate.
- Similarly, I don't think examinership should get merged in. It is just a different legal concept. Same sort of aim, but different legal system and different requirements. If we wanted to wrap everything similar in, we would also sling US chapter 11 in there.
So in short, I am against both merge proposals for the above reasons.